It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by fallow the light
reply to post by ANOK
then why don't you go and do that? you can do that in today's society. why change things for others that dont want them that way? why cant you just go live your life and ill live mine. right now you have the ability to make ur own company and run it how YOU see fit.
why would you force some one ells to run their business the way YOU want?
And do you honestly think that the people will control things? you really don't think that the government wont? our DEM/LIB white house seems to think the government should regulate everything.
it all seems so hypocritical and unfair to me.
Even as an Anarchist, I'd rather have a government work for ME as much as possible SO LONG AS IT EXISTS.
...If I really wanted to, I could get 300 like-minded individuals together and make a factory tomorrow, for whatever purpose.
In that the material framework of capitalism is extant, yes, there would be no need to build factories (except perhaps here in America where they all seem to have magically been transported to the third world by Friedman, the faerie godfather of neoliberalism). The factories that do exist should be made use of in a transition, it would be wasteful not to.
...What was the housing bubble, if not partially the creation of a glut of structures with no real purpose. Yes, we can argue that when one builds a house, one intends for that house to be occupied. But, as can clearly be seen, in the supply chain and labor chain of production, homes are built without the express necessity on the part of the construction company or financier that they be occupied. This is even more emphatically supported by wealthy developers, such as Donald Trump, who sells his "brand" (a hallow shell of a product - a cognitive deception, really) and then when the project goes belly up or has some other issue, he is protected because Trump the physical person is not Trump the Corporation (ironically, Latin for "embodiment").
I live in South Florida...outside of Las Vegas, I think I know what I can see with my own eyes. And my eyes see a lot of unfinished construction projects, unoccupied completed projects, and derelict previously used buildings. Interestingly, there is high unemployment and people complain about jobs being offshored. Any one of those abandoned and neglected blights could be used tomorrow for either housing in the case of residential or working in the case of commercial/industrial. But someone owns them who is waiting for the building to "have a purpose" so it is worth more money.
This is not temporal. This is a long time comin', as they say. Detroit and New Orleans were just harbingers. I've lived in the so-called third world and I can tell you what to expect if you'd like to listen. I don't know your economic status, but I know mine and it's what you'd call lower middle-class. Better than working poor, but only because I live with relatives. I'd like to fix that, but I know that middle class is not an easy club to enter right now and most people have hunkered down who will survive this transition (the transition from the US the way we previously conceived of it to it's new globalist status as thirdworld enclave). Those not in the middle class will not be getting into it easily and the middle class itself with have to undergo a radical shift in self-perception and many in it will soon find a new strange limbo between working poor and middle class.
What went wrong? SOCIALISM. Same song, but socialists play a fun game of pin the tail on the capitalist!
Mortgage backed securities is socialism? They should never have torn down the regulation between investment banking and mortgages. That was a bad idea.
Personally, I find it repugnant that anyone should have to live in a high rise tenement or dumpy apartment block. And then, as a society, we wonder what exactly goes wrong with "those people". You cannot solve one problem and then avoid the others, that is why I bring this up here. There is no way to look at the mortgage issue without analyzing the social flaw in mortgages to begin with.
It is 100% unreasonable that any human being born into this world should be denied their own land to live on. And while I agree that communal living is optimal because we are social creatures, there needs to be some attempt other than "rent-controlled" apartments and publicly funded (those that haven't been "gentrified") welfare housing (aka projects). That is bs. And I'm not just talking about the ghetto, I'm talking about trailer parks and other versions of third-world slums as re-envisioned in this country.
See, my view is that a person has rights and despite whatever strange techno-social framework we've created over the century, the fetus is born into this world with some natural contract that needs to be obliged.
I've shaken the rhetoric. That is why I don't toe the Democratic party line like I did back when I first became politically aware. I'm not going to sit and defend socialism, because I've read too much Marx, Bakunin, Freire, Chomsky and DeBord to be 100% in the boat.
I know that State Socialism is not the saving grace, that is for sure, because it is just the inverse of State Capitalism. Really, it's just the angle you view it from:
State Socialism: Government controls the means of production - Cronie-ism and a Bureaucrat class will take advantage of the system by placing themselves high up on the ladder in the state-run factories and plants.
State Capitalism: The Private sector controls the means of production through contracts with the Federal, State and Municipal governments. Again, Cronie-ism and a Boardroom cabal will take advantage of the system, paying off the politicians to secure bids through middle men (lobbyists).
Same thing, different perspective.
The fact is, the USA is the world's most powerful COMMUNIST nation.
Not at all. How exactly do you see us as communist?? There are no communes. The USSR was not communist (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - i.e., state socialism, i.e., state capitalism). Workers have no control here, if they did, you would not be seeing factories in China making crap to be sold at Walmart where people earn poverty salaries.
...the word is "profits", and it's not a dirty word.
Profit is what is made over and above the real cost of making a product. If it costs overhead for the building (electricity, water, etc.), paying the labor and securing the raw materials, I don't see why any price must be set beyond the operational needs. You might say, "how can my 100-200 friends be trusted to settle on the exact, correct price?" Well, I would imagine that when you are making things in the community where you live, for the community where you live that you would not want to treat your neighbors usuriously. Do unto others, right?
Setting aside the massive problems with trite notions such as "fair", and "reasonable", I think it is to your credit that you foresee the potential problem of "laziness". Not really sure I like your solutions though, sorry to say. You would have the offender "castigated", in the hopes that their "laziness" (tough one to define of course) would be "deterred." Hmmm. I'm not sure I would like working for you (er, I mean, "me", er, I mean, "us"...ah, whatever. Guess I would just be "shamed" or something, perhaps into latrine duty??) Yes. Sounds just lovely.
Maybe a poor choice of words, I'm not talking about a corporal punishment system or a form of demotion, like latrine duty.
Then again, wasn't it Marx who said the assembly line system has detached the worker from his creation, away from the creator of an artisinal craft and reduced to nothing but a drone doing a repetitive task.
The thought would be that, rather than going to IKEA for some semi-built product, partially put together in Thailand or China, a person who had skill with wood working would make the whole chair from scratch. I know, I know, the argument is that then things go slower and are more costly. But then people have jobs, chairs last generations, not three or four years until it chips or warps or breaks and then you send it out to the street corner to be salvaged by some lowly scrapper or disposed of by your city's bulk service.
I'm looking at a nice, strong hutch made by a factory in upstate New York, sometime in the 30s apparently and it is very sturdy and still works the way it was intended. Meanwhile, a dresser that my family and I picked out a year ago at IKEA is already breaking, just like the sagging bookcase I bought at target 3 years ago. For me, it's an obvious answer.
Why make your art only accessible to those who can afford it.
There is a difference between throwing a football well, and being the best to throw it, so that you have to make millions of dollars for doing it. Ok, people want to see you throw the football, but who cares.
Why is it that so many of the last century's "socialist experiments" went so terribly wrong?
Not once has an attempt at socialism been made in a developed, highly successful, debt free nation because in those circumstances socialism is largely unnescessary.
There's no such thing as a 'free' market. As long as there is a dominating economic force then there will never be a free market since they will ultimately wield more influence than anyone else. 'Free' markets welcome dictatorship, they empower the rich not the poor.